“The Bain-centered campaign strikes at the heart of Mr. Romney’s argument for his qualifications as president — that as a successful executive in the private sector, he learned how to create jobs — and advances an argument that President Obama’s re-election campaign has signaled it would employ aggressively against Mr. Romney.

“‘His business success comes from raiding and destroy businesses — putting people out of work, stealing their health care,’ said Rick Tyler, a senior adviser to the pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future, which recently bought the film, ‘King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town,’ after groups backing two other Republican candidates passed up opportunities to use it…

“‘If this is free enterprise, then conservatives should have nothing to do with it,” [Tyler] said. ‘It is predatory paper-shuffling. Mitt Romney was engaged in the engineered destruction of free enterprise,’ including raiding workers’ pension and health care funds to finance corporate takeovers, he said.”

“‘Frankly I don’t think bringing a Bain mentality to this economy — to running this economy — makes him a strong candidate,’ Axelrod told me. ‘I don’t think shifting and moving around on positions – fundamental positions – is one that people are going to embrace.’…

“‘He is not a job creator he is a corporate raider,’ he added. ‘Those aren’t the values that we want to lead our economy.'”

***

“The young men in business suits, gingerly picking their way among the millwrights, machinists and pipefitters at Kansas City’s Worldwide Grinding Systems steel mill. Gaping up at the cranes that swung 10-foot cast iron buckets through the air. Jumping at the thunder from the melt shop’s electric-arc furnace as it turned scrap metal into lava…

“Apparently they liked what they saw. Soon after, in October 1993, Bain Capital, co-founded by Mitt Romney, became majority shareholder in a steel mill that had been operating since 1888…

“Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they’d been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month.

“What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.”

***

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I — I haven’t seen the film, but it does reflect ‘The New York Times’ story two days ago about one particular company. And I think people should look at the film and decide. If it’s factually accurate, it raises questions.

I’m very much for free enterprise. I’m very much for exactly what the Governor just described, create a business, grow jobs, provide leadership.

“Gingrich also repeatedly told viewers to watch a forthcoming anti-Romney movie that Gingrich supporters have bought the rights to. Newt claimed—implausibly—to not have seen it, though he does know that it clocks in at exactly 27 1/2 minutes.

“Newt continued with his bizarre attacks against Romney for being a successful businessman. Seemingly unaware that GOP primary voters worship at the altar of the free market, Gingrich has adopted the DNC attack line that Romney is a modern day Gordon Gekko who delights in laying off American workers to line his own pockets. In Gingrich’s world, lobbying for a sleazy quasi-governmental entity that played a role in the U.S. economic meltdown is preferable to creating wealth in the private sector. Good luck with that message in a Republican primary.”

***

“If nothing else, you in the tea party movement have spent the last three years teaching Americans that we are in a battle for the very soul of capitalism. And here comes Romney, the soul of American capitalism in the flesh. Look back over his career as a predator drone at Bain Capital: Isn’t it the exact sort of background you always insist politicians ought to have as you wave your copy of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ in the air?

“It’s true that Romney said that the bank bailouts of 2008-09 were necessary, while you regard them as a mortal sin against free-market principles. But you shouldn’t hold this against him. Any study of bank history reveals that free-marketeers have no problem doling out, or grabbing for, government money when the chips are down…

“With Romney, a centimillionaire venture capitalist, carrying your banner in 2012, you will finally get to submit your capsized vision of social class to the verdict of the people — the actual flesh-and-blood people, that is, not the corporate ‘people’ who make up the S&P 500.”

***

“[N]ot only is Romney’s Bain record on trial here, so is the whole idea of Schumpeterian, entrepreneurial capitalism where ‘creative destruction’ creates a massive net benefit for society. This is exactly the idea that the Obama reelection campaign is attacking as promoting unacceptable levels of inequality. (Apparently bad government investments — like in Solyndra — that lose jobs are OK.)”

Is it true that she got ZERO, And i thought it was an easy five word, So you spent 200K on ads to ask voters in IA to write in Palin and you got nothing? Maybe its time to let this obsession about Palin a rest

Coming from a former Palin guy, who can’t understand why a small amount of Palin supporters are acting as if they are insane, And she is somehow totally winning this thing secretly

OrthodoxJew on January 9, 2012 at 1:23 AM

Without having the financial accounts in front of me, I swear that the efforts did not cost much at all. I think radio spots were in the $100 something range.

The free ad coverage that it got EVERYWHERE was paid back million-fold.

And the Palin backers said it wasn’t about her getting in but about sending a message. I believe that write-ins got somewhere around 100 or something. I know that she got a decent amount for no traction or effort. :)

ROMNEY:
RomneyCare? The Democrats made me do it!
Liberal Judges? The Democrats made me do it!
State-Paid Abortions? The Democrats made me do it!
Quit the Party when Reagan ran? The Extremist Republicans (Reagan) made me do it!

So, the Republican party is determined to select as its nominee the man who made RomneyCare the law in his state – the same healthcare law that was the blueprint for Obamacare. And then they expect Tea Party people, fiscal conservatives and Reagan Democrats (fiscally & socially conservative blue-collar workers) to vote for him? Hmmmm …

Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Moderate with the Liberal record, technocrat reputation (anyone remember another Mass. governor like this?) and “shady” vulture capitalism background is an extremely odd choice for the standard bearer of a party whose rank and file despise Obamacare and crony capitalism.

Wessermen today clearly asserted that Romney was responsible for those layoffs because he was CEO of those companies. This is patently false. Romney was a part of a venture capitalist group that invested in these companies and provided management services in the form advice, consultation etc etc etc.

The Obama administration, also invested Solyndra, and documents do show the administration was providing management advice on some scale.

Now, I’ll agree that it isn’t a perfect analogy. Bain was likely far more heavily involved with these companies than Obama was in Solyndra. There are other differences to that I’ll go into later.

The analogy is close enough to draw a certain level of equivalency. If Romney can be blamed for failed investments that resulted in layoffs, than the Obama administration can be blamed as well.

Of course, what they did was not perfectly equivalent, in several other ways.

Bain used private money to invest in companies in hopes of getting financial returns. The Obama administration used taxpayer money to invest in companies owned by political allies, after being warned ahead of time that these companies were unlikely to generate a return.

In other words, Bain lost its own money trying to create wealth for itself and others. Obama lost taxpayer money trying to prop up his buddies company.

See, the big difference here, is what Romneys company did was actually admirable, even if it didn’t always work out.

Thank you for link. Hard to believe Mitt supported the Obama Stimulus but there he is supporting it and wishing GW Bush had caved in to the Democrats and done it earlier. This is only four years ago people. This man is nearly as liberal as Harry Reid it seems.

Steveangell on January 9, 2012 at 1:07 AM

Wow, I knew Mittens was terrible but never knew he was this bad!!!

Supporting the stimulus!!!

Telling O Reilly that he knew that Romneycare increased costs and 50% of it is paid for by the taxpayers!!!!

Lets not throw the bath water out with the baby folks. Its half of one and six dozen of the other as far as I am concerned. Don’t get your wad in a panties because the destination is half the fun in getting there.

Is it true that she got ZERO, And i thought it was an easy five word, So you spent 200K on ads to ask voters in IA to write in Palin and you got nothing?

OrthodoxJew on January 9, 2012 at 1:23 AM

While it was nowhere near the earthquake they had hoped for, no, it is not true that she got zero votes. In at least one of the reports I read she actually got more votes than Ambassador Huntsman in one caucus group.

And as a supporter of Governor Palin myself, I will not join the constant drumbeat of begging her to enter the race. She’s made her decision and I can respect that.

Firing people isn’t cool. I’ve been fired, and I’ve observed other people as they made the decision to fire others. Typically, its extremely painful for all sides involved.

But firing people is sometimes NECESSARY. If you have to fire ten people so a company that employs a hundred people survives, you do it. If its a choice between ten people losing their jobs, and a hundred people, then the choice is clear. The hard part, is choosing which ten! This is the part that keeps any decent businessman worth their salt up at night.

This is why companies downsize, to preserve the existence of the company. Yes its painful, and I don’t blame people for being bitter about it, but sometimes its necessary.

Midwestprincesse on January 9, 2012 at 1:36 AM
______________________________________________

Exactly- and the INDEPENDENTs in the voting public do not want to debate (again) Abortion- Gay Marriage – Contaception?- Going back into Iraq- Thats the dembos social BS distraction- Stay away from it —
ITS STILL THE ECONOMY stupid ! that’s where the votes are won- SO who delivers the best republican turnaround for that ? Gingrich ? who’s still got Freddie money in his pockets ?? Obummer throws fannie/freddie under the bus for the meltdown if newt is nominee. Game over then.

Guess we will have to just wait and see (providing Romney is the GOP nominee)..BUT I know what Obie is going to do..I’ll take the GOP train..:)

Dire Straits on January 9, 2012 at 1:23 AM

I will too..take the GOP train..except for the presidency if Mitt is our pick vs. O. There are a bunch of local and state races and we might still barely win the Senate back even with Mitt at the top of the ballot.

Watch that Josh Mandel guy in Ohio. He might do pretty well vs. Brown.

I wish that Jeb Bush would make himself useful and run for Senate in Florida, but he knows he will get to run in 2016 after Romney loses.

Actually, recent data shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans view the business community positively. In order to find people that do not view the business community positively, you kinda have to search among the furthest left members of the democratic party.

So I don’t think this is an issue that will win Obama many votes in the general. Rather, this is an issue he’s trying hitting to galvanize his base.

Frankly, I’m not even sure how well its going to work on that front. I mean, it’ll motivate some members of his base to get out and vote for him, sure. But, he pretty much got every single liberal in America out to vote for him in 2008. With the bad economy and all the unfulfilled promises he’s made, and with his own base as disappointed as it is, matching 2008 is a near impossible feat.

This is why companies downsize, to preserve the existence of the company. Yes its painful, and I don’t blame people for being bitter about it, but sometimes its necessary.

WolvenOne on January 9, 2012 at 1:42 AM

I agree..except for a GOP presidential candidate running in a stagnant economy with the media 100% against you and unemployment high, and you are uncomfortable around your average voter.

Great stuff, but boomerangs in the unlikely situation of running for POTUS.

Totally different ball-game.

And, remember, as governor, Romney was an anti-capitalist and a big government guy.

Look, I know people want to beat Obama, but like Gov. Palin said it is equally important in what you win with.

Rombots don’t understand this because deep down, expediency is paramount.

It is actually EASIER to lay off 1000 employees from a company than only laying off 500 but making the company run better so it creates MORE wealth and keeps people employed.

Romney did not do that. He is really not a ‘businessman’ in that sense. The Dems will destroy him as the one who did not create wealth, but redistributed it, laid off people, and gave him and his buddies ridiculously high bonuses.

That is great from economics textbook, but we are human beings, not numbers,….

And boy will Axelrod & Co. let us know how Romney thinks of us as mere numbers.

Frankly, I’m not even sure how well its going to work on that front. I mean, it’ll motivate some members of his base to get out and vote for him, sure. But, he pretty much got every single liberal in America out to vote for him in 2008. With the bad economy and all the unfulfilled promises he’s made, and with his own base as disappointed as it is, matching 2008 is a near impossible feat.

WolvenOne on January 9, 2012 at 1:50 AM

With Romney as the nominee, you have a crushed political base.

Romney also has no vision. He has talking points.

If you’d like to talk up Romney, feel free to do so, but I know that Obama will be formidable and Romney has the charisma of a wet noodle.

Mitt will deflate the base. People will vote for him, but he won’t have a VP nominee that will excite the base.

Midwestprincesse on January 9, 2012 at 1:59 AM
____________________________________________
Bad news princess,
The base wont be voting in the next Prez- the indies will- We idealistic conservatives will just have to get over ourselves to play against obozo!!

In a war, as soon as you betray to your enemy that there is a piece of land or objective that you will fight for no matter what, it gives your enemy an edge.

If I know that you will have a division guarding that bridge, then I can plan around it knowing that you have one division pinned down and not in your reserve and you lose flexibility. Not only that, but I KNOW that and can exploit.

By focusing only on 100% electability, you have now taken the flow and possibilities out of the battle and made his job easier.

Axelrod is hoping that you see this election as one where we have to win it…NO MATTER WHO RUNS against O, because he wants LOW turnout and low morale in the enemy forces as we cravenly cower in our belief of a lie that independents will never vote for a conservative.

This is why back in 2008, the media had to destroy Gov. Palin. Because she raised turnout and helped McCain to pull even before teh mortgage meltdown in late Sept. 2008.

In war, morale is important, flexibility is important and vision is important. Romney’s vision is simply this:

“I’m not Obama.”

How inspiring is that from a man who has a reputation as a flip-flopper.

Romney…is Theoden while still under the spell of Saruman. Weak, but conciliatory, with no leadership…..nuetered.

Imagine a candidate whose vision is “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness..”

That might have been Palin in 2012. Maybe Scott Walker in 2016.

If Leningrad can withstand the 1000 days of seige, so can this country survive a second term of O. And boy the gridlock after we take the Senate will be glorious.

If you’d like to talk up Romney, feel free to do so, but I know that Obama will be formidable and Romney has the charisma of a wet noodle.

Midwestprincesse on January 9, 2012 at 1:56 AM

Rasmussen came out with a poll of 1000 Republicans on Sunday, and found that only 6% of them said that they would vote third party if their favorite candidate didn’t win.

An additional 7% said they’d vote Obama, and thats REALLY confusing. My guess there is that these are Ron Pauls supporters among the democratic party. After all, its not very hard to change your voter registration to vote in a primary slash caucus.

Overall, this is pretty good news though. Right now is logically when Republican dis-unity would be at its highest point. Therefore, third party consideration should be about peaked, and will decline in the coming months. These numbers aren’t very high to begin with, some pundits have suggested that Romney would lose over twenty percent of Republicans if he were the nominee. My suspicion is that this idea, is largely being fueled by liberals who are engaging in very wishful thinking.

No, after several months of campaigning, after picking a good conservative VP, and after Obama gets up and starts reminding people why they hate him in the FIRST place, we’re likely to have a pretty good turnout.

Oh, sure, we’re going to lose some of the base with Romney. However, it’ll be a small enough number that if he does a HALF competent job with independents he should be able to make it up.

That 2nd video is embarrassing. Why doesn’t Mr. Romney speak of his audience’s economic uncertainty/pain without giving cringe-worthy ‘I’m just like you‘-type examples of his own life that even he doesn’t believe? If he’s the nominee, it’s dearly hoped that he works on his act to middle-class crowds.

That 2nd video is embarrassing. Why doesn’t Mr. Romney speak of his audience’s economic uncertainty/pain without giving cringe-worthy ‘I’m just like you‘-type examples of his own life that even he doesn’t believe? If he’s the nominee, it’s dearly hoped that he works on his act to middle-class crowds.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 9, 2012 at 2:35 AM

Romney’s appearance today in Rochester was much, much worse than the video clip. The “I’m just like you!” pandering went into his time stocking shelves at Staples (?) to his wife’s grandfather’s time as a coal miner in Wales. Yes, Mitt’s wife’s Welsh grandfather — who was a coal miner at one point in his life — is being used to substitute for the lack of dirt underneath Mitt’s fingernails. It was pathetic all around and C-SPAN taped every awful moment.

If you’re going after the indies, then why back the guy with the “Wall street baggage?” A lot of independents are going to be more sympathetic to that whole OWS message.

MeatHeadinCA on January 9, 2012 at 2:12 AM

It really doesn’t make much sense why the would run on “electability” when Wall Street and corporate raiding is still toxic in the public’s mind. I’m starting to question the higher minds running the Romney camp (although I do like their rally signs at events.) :-)

It really doesn’t make much sense why the would run on “electability” when Wall Street and corporate raiding is still toxic in the public’s mind. I’m starting to question the higher minds running the Romney camp (although I do like their rally signs at events.) :-)

Punchenko on January 9, 2012 at 2:43 AM

I do have to give them some credit, though. They are framing Romney (with, no doubt, Romney’s pushing) as a man of the right (at least recently. Heck, we’re now seeing the ROMNEY supporters throwing out litmus tests for conservatism and capitalism. Listening to last night’s debate, I realized that Romney is extremely calculated and he knows exactly what words to say to bait conservatives without coming across tacky like Rick Perry. If you listen carefully, though, you’ll hear subtle points that prove he would not govern as the man he tries to represent himself as.

If you listen carefully, though, you’ll hear subtle points that prove he would not govern as the man he tries to represent himself as.

MeatHeadinCA on January 9, 2012 at 2:48 AM

He’s governed in the deepest blue of blue states. Things may be very different if he has a Tea Party House and a Republican Senate. I have a relative who lives in MA who is very fiscally conservative, and he really likes Romney.

If you listen carefully, though, you’ll hear subtle points that prove he would not govern as the man he tries to represent himself as.

MeatHeadinCA on January 9, 2012 at 2:48 AM

I agree with you, Meat, on Romney’s lack on sincerity when he calls himself a conservative. I really don’t think Romney has the political chops to govern effectively and has proven himself to have an extremely thin skin. A Romney administration would be business as usual for four years followed by a Mark Warner presidency in 2016 and a Democrat-controlled House.

OrthodoxJew,
Romneybots still threatened by the existence of Sarah Palin. You are Romneybots are the most insecure sacks of crap around. I’m ashamed to be in the same party as Willard the Liquidator and his bots like you.

What is *more* important than what each of *us* thinks is what the “independent”/wishy washy voters might think:

In the event of a Romney candidacy, as soon as The Obama Machine gets going on this Bain stuff (not to mention the flip floppning from a seemingly base-less politician who will say whatever he thinks the electorate wants to hear) *I* suspect the typical voter would ask themselves, “Why go with that Romney guy when he’s more corrupt and almost as bad as the President?”

so your saying Gingrich can have a personal and ethical transformation, change his colors a few times….. but for Mittens- he’s not allowed to change his mind. Ever. Explain.

FlaMurph on January 9, 2012 at 1:27 AM
=========================================================
If anyone needs personal and ethical transformation, it is Romney. Read today’s WSJ…. It shows Romney’s Bain Capital to treat good hard working American workers with disdain. Romney’ Bain caused massive losses of jobs and capital, except for the capital the Bain execs and investors ripped off from the companies leaving those companies without sufficient capital to operate.

And how about Romney saying that only independently wealthy rich folks can run for office, that working people should not run for office.

Romney is a man of low character.

I hope Sheldon give $25million to the SuperPac so that get the truth out to voters

Go Newt!! Keep pressing them. Romney is a near sure loser to Obama and he must be defeated in this nomination process or we will get Obama for 4 more years

The failed Range Fuels wood-to-ethanol factory in southeastern Georgia that sucked up $65 million in federal and state tax dollars was sold Tuesday for pennies on the dollar to another bio-fuel maker with equally grand plans to transform the alternative energy world.

LanzaTech, a New Zealand-based biofuel company, paid $5.1 million for the plant in Soperton. Its main financial backer: Vinod Khosla, a California entrepreneur who also bankrolled Range Fuels, and helped secure its government loans, before Range went bust last year.

LanzaTech hasn’t received the same type of loans, but the company has received $7 million from the U.S. departments of Energy and Transportation to assist in the development of alternative fuels.

The Range fiasco harkens other, failed renewable energy companies that received major taxpayer funding. California solar panel maker Solyndra got $535 million in federal loan guarantees. Beacon Power of Massachusetts, which makes energy-storage equipment, took in $43 million in federal money. Both filed for bankruptcy last year.

Range cost U.S. taxpayers $64 million and Georgia taxpayers another $6.2 million. Tuesday’s sale netted $5.1 million which will help offset losses suffered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Georgia’s money, which paid for some of the ethanol-making equipment, won’t be recouped outright, but state officials expect LanzaTech to use the machinery
(More…..)
===========

morning joe defending barney huntsman for working under dear leader….yeah like those folks would take a candidate that worked under W or any other gop president….highly doubtful, double standard once again

Santordinejad had his day in the sun and he’s falling back to obscurity after his run all the way up to to a whole 14% in the RCP average. The 2nd place trophy in NH is a contest between Paul and Jon Huntsman. That leaves Newt and Perry still battling for 4th place and last place. And the news for anyone not named Romney is no better in SC.

If you listen real hard, you can hear her doing scales in her dressing room.

If you listen real hard, you can hear her doing scales in her dressing room.

MJBrutus on January 9, 2012 at 6:36 AM

Still early days yet. My gut (which, I admit, is prodigious) tells me there are yet more twists and turns ahead. This is a most unusual primary cycle… perhaps a “once in a lifetime” kinda thing. Still a very fluid situation and it would be a bit foolish, IMHO, to count out any of the contenders just yet.

canopfor on January 9, 2012 at 6:11 AM
==================================

darn…..hang in there and hope mrs canopfor has been supplying you with tea and chicken soup…yup stephy was doing his old job of dem attack dog

cmsinaz on January 9, 2012 at 6:25 AM

cmsinaz:Thanks,yup,lots of tea.And Stephy was on Team Clinton,and
now,he’s a Political Proxy for the DNC!!

And,I have no clue as to why the GOP keeps walking into
Democrat orchrastrated infighting and basically,calling
out the Republican nominee(s),and putting them,on the
spot,into some kind of confrontation,which,ahem,makes
Hopey look (sane)!!:)

I stand by what I said last night to Karen. Pessimism over Mitt’s chances against PBHO are entirely without merit.

We are in the early part of the primary season. The candidates are doing their best to savage each other to win the nomination. That’s as it should be, even if it isn’t pretty.

Meanwhile PBHO flies around on AF-1 with pomp and circumstance and his own song to accompany him every time he enters a room. Criticisms of him from the press are oblique and couched in the most respectful of terms.

Given the above one shouldn’t wonder that the GOP candidates look small by comparison to the sitting POTUS. When the dust settles from the internecine primary fight, however, things will start to change. By the time of the nominating convention with all of the fanfare and pageantry the nominee will assume his full stature and at that point be able to look the POTUS square in the eye, in the perception of the general public.

And yet, even at this early point, where the tide is at its lowest Mitt has held his own and at times surpassed Obama in the national polls. His strength will only increase from here on out.

I realize that I am late to the party. However, I find it ironic that Gov. Palin carries much less baggage than most of these candidates in that she has been happily married for years; she has no questionable business practices; she has not been a lobbyist; and yet she is asked repeatedly to shut up and sit down and let the big boys take care of this mess. She has a fine record on the very issues that are important now, such as cutting spending, encouraging economic growth, and fighting corruption. She has also shown herself to be charismatic and able to rally the base. She is a fearless advocate for this country and would not stop pounding Obama on his record. Plus, she is an effective and tireless campaigner. Put her policies up against any of these candidates and she does as well if not better. I would support her in a New York minute because I trust her to do what she says. I don’t believe she would sell out her beliefs for political gain, and the country would be in good hands during a Palin presidency. I would not worry that she was making deals to protect her buddies on Wall Street or to repay political donations. I would trust her to defend this nation against all enemies especially the ones within. I know she is far from perfect, as we all are, but she is a true patriot who loves this country and would work tirelessly to defeat Obama. Okay, let the pounding commence.

Twitter is abuzz this morning with talk of today’s article in the WSJ about Governor Romney’s days with Bain Capital. I’m sure the media, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Downer, and Jay Carney are memorizing their talking points as I type this.

When I look at the picture for this post I see a group of young men who made an honest buck. OK lots of them. And I see that they have the unmitigated gall to be happy about it! Oh the horror. Those evil spawn of Satan. Getting rich by investing money in small businesses that allow them to grow and prosper. It’s a disgrace!

I think that it would have been swell if Mitch Daniels ran. He didn’t. I’m over it.

MJBrutus on January 9, 2012 at 7:08 AM

Actually, I am over it too, but sometimes I do find myself shaking my head at our choices. I like Mitch too. It’s funny how some of the candidates who chose not to run or have dropped out are looking pretty good to me now.

The Conservative movement is in deep shinola despite what talk radio says……

Why?

1. There is no effective “seller” of Conservative ideas and philosophy running for high office.

2. The 2010 “Tea Party” effort has been completely snuffed out by the BigGov gop leadership.

3. The media, education, bureaucracy, and institutions are filled with regulators and liberty stealers and they aren’t going to get any less aggressive.

4. We have a LAZY AMERICA with citizens that could turn the tide around more concerned about their kids sports activities and getting hot fries in drive thru than changing the govt, and stopping the onslaught coming with ObamaCare and such.

and 5. The people that actually CARE about the government are the TEATERS. Just try and pull them away from the Federal sow and see if ANYONE can put up with the squealing.

After a two-year freeze in federal workers’ salaries, President Obama will propose a 0.5 percent pay increase for civilian employees as part of his 2013 budget, senior administration officials said Friday.

The plan is likely to become part of an election-year confrontation between the White House and Congress over government spending. Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates have called for freezing basic pay rates for at least one more year, with some pitching it as a way to pay for extending the payroll tax cut.

Obama called for the pay freeze shortly after the November 2010 midterm elections, saying federal workers needed to share the burden of getting the deficit under control. The proposal disclosed Friday, which requires congressional approval, means that federal civilian employees would get a modest across-the-board pay jump next January.

Despite the freeze, raises have continued for workers who graduate into higher steps of the General Schedule pay system or who are promoted — a practice some GOP lawmakers say should be halted to help trim the federal debt.

Rep. Dennis A. Ross (R-Fla.), who chairs a House subcommittee overseeing the federal workforce, called the pay plan “pure politics” and labeled Obama “a public sector union puppet” for making the proposal.

But administration officials, who were not authorized to speak publicly, said the White House would no longer support using pay freezes as a way to cut the federal deficit. And in a tight budget year, they said, the small increase was all they could afford.

The jump would be well below the 3.6 percent cost-of-living adjustment that took effect this week for Social Security recipients and most federal retirees to keep pace with inflation. It is also far below private-sector earnings, which climbed an average of roughly 2 percent in 2011, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The White House informed federal agencies of the decision Friday in order to put the finishing touches on its 2013 budget proposal, which is expected to be unveiled in early February.

Virtually nobody with a federal paycheck has had a significant raise in recent years. Obama froze the salaries of top West Wing staffers and political officials after taking office in 2009. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers have not had a raise in four of the past six years.

No decision has been made on a raise for uniformed military personnel, the officials said, although troops received a 1.6 percent pay bump this month. Lawmakers and federal worker unions traditionally push to ensure pay parity between civilian and military personnel, the standard practice for many years before 2009.

Some rank-and-file federal workers said Friday that the proposed raise is nominal at best and that they think they’ve sacrificed enough.

“My rent went up 10 percent in the last two years,” said Jared Hautamaki, an Environmental Protection Agency employee, adding that the proposed 0.5 percent increase “is an insult to federal workers.”
(More…..)
===========

“And,I have no clue as to why the GOP keeps walking into
Democrat orchrastrated infighting…”
canopfor on January 9, 2012 at 7:02 AM

That’s why Gingrich is the strongest among these clowns – he not only doesn’t fall for the bait, but has the courage to call the individual (usually the media, sometimes another candidate)on the carpet for it.

I’ve been noticing an uptick in ads put out by the Governor and his pac here in my corner of the Sunshine State. If I watch TV at all, it’s only FOX News, so I don’t know if they’re airing them on the alphabet networks also.

I do expect to see the ads increasing and for the robo-calls to start soon as we get closer to January 31.

I realize that I am late to the party. However, I find it ironic that Gov. Palin carries much less baggage than most of these candidates in that she has been happily married for years; she has no questionable business practices; she has not been a lobbyist; and yet she is asked repeatedly to shut up and sit down and let the big boys take care of this mess. She has a fine record on the very issues that are important now, such as cutting spending, encouraging economic growth, and fighting corruption. She has also shown herself to be charismatic and able to rally the base. She is a fearless advocate for this country and would not stop pounding Obama on his record. Plus, she is an effective and tireless campaigner. Put her policies up against any of these candidates and she does as well if not better. I would support her in a New York minute because I trust her to do what she says. I don’t believe she would sell out her beliefs for political gain, and the country would be in good hands during a Palin presidency. I would not worry that she was making deals to protect her buddies on Wall Street or to repay political donations. I would trust her to defend this nation against all enemies especially the ones within. I know she is far from perfect, as we all are, but she is a true patriot who loves this country and would work tirelessly to defeat Obama. Okay, let the pounding commence.

MJ, I gotta tell you, prior to open registration, if I were Sarah Palin, and I came in to HotAir and read the comments about me and my supporters from supposed allies and friends, I can’t help but think that those kinds of sentiments expressed by the constituency that should have supported her would have done more to discourage a run than anything the media and the DNC threw at her.

Psalms 55

[12] It is not an enemy who taunts me —
then I could bear it;
it is not an adversary who deals insolently with me —
then I could hide from him.
[13] But it is you, my equal,
my companion, my familiar friend.

I stand by what I said last night to Karen. Pessimism over Mitt’s chances against PBHO are entirely without merit.

***

MJBrutus on January 9, 2012 at 7:02 AM

Sorry. I’m not buying it for two reasons in particular.

First, a Romney nomination torpedoes hanging Obamacare around Obama’s neck. Yak all you want about federalism. I’m not aware that Romney vetoed or threatened to veto Romneycare. And he won’t apologize for it. I heard a surrogate (Rep. Shock of IL) try to explain the federalism argument to a townhall group, and he was very unpersuasive. He kept saying that Romney tried to do what was best for Massachusetts. If so, neither Shock nor anyone else bothers to explain why Romneycare/Obamacare isn’t good for the rest of the country. And if it’s not, why doesn’t Romney explain how it was a spectactular failure?

Second, Romney has to come up with a succinct explanation for his time at Bain. He needs to explain briefly how these deals worked. Romney is going to be portrayed as Gordon Gekko, making a ton of money while adding NO VALUE. Don’t debate me. Romney needs to convince swing voters that he’s not a corporate ghoul. Call these people economic rubes if you wish, but Romney will be portrayed as a corporate Willie Horton, and he had better find a way to explain himself. Layoffs and closures aside, Romney really needs to be able to explain how his group walks away with millions after a firesale, while the companies’ underfunded pension plans get dumped into the federal PBGC and the retired workers end up getting peanuts.

Hey, I understand the difference between a defined-benefit (pension) retirement plan and a defined-contribution (profit-sharing) retirement plan. Yes, the original owners of the Bain companies are to be faulted for underfunding their pension plans. But Romney has to clearly explain whose responsibility that was because it will appear to the low-information voter that Romney et al. just raided these companies. If I’m the DNC, I’m contacting Oliver Stone or whoever for the rights to take the clip from Wall Street where Bud Fox enters a conference room to learn that his dad’s Blue Star airlines is about to get carved up while the workers are going to walk away with peanuts. There, the company had an overfunded pension plan, but voters won’t draw the distinction.

Until Romney can succinctly and believably explain the nature of Bain’s business, he’s going to be toxic as the GOP nominee. Stop kidding yourself.

That’s why Gingrich is the strongest among these clowns – he not only doesn’t fall for the bait, but has the courage to call the individual (usually the media, sometimes another candidate)on the carpet for it.

Czar of Defenestration on January 9, 2012 at 7:42 AM
================================================
Excellent point, and that is why the establishment, including HA, is now trying to destroy Newt

I would vote for Mitt Romney, the capitalist of creative destruction, able to see where there are non-functional parts of companies or entire divisions of same, and close them as not working. A cruel, cold-hearted capitalist who can see what works, what doesn’t, what is good and what is bad, and what creates a lean, well run business that has a few core ideals and sticks to them.

Instead Mitt Romney is running as the Governor of MA, where his record is not that of a wholesale slasher and cutter, not that of removing entire bureaucracies lock, stock and two smoking barrels from government, but is one of an ‘economizer’ which adores large institutions and just wants them to be run ‘well’ by tweaking non-tax income areas. Basically a thrifty yet authoritarian government is just fine with Mitt Romney. Would he have had problems getting it cut with the D’s in control of the legislature? Yes, yes he would. When he sees a bad deal does he see that it is bad at its basis or that it just needs some ‘tweaks’ to be made ‘tolerable’? He is the tweaker not the sort to say ‘if you want it over my veto, fine, but this is not good for the people who elected me and I’m not signing that POS’.

Any politician who thinks that any government, at any level, can mandate that you purchase anything as part of just being a citizen isn’t someone who can be trusted. Doesn’t matter if it is a County Administrator, a Mayor, a member of a City Council, a member of an Administrative Board, a State Legislator, a Congresscritter or a President. It isn’t that this is a ‘State’s rights’ concept, it is the basis of being able to freely participate in the marketplace without the government telling you what you MUST purchase. And if the excuse is that another level of government has mandated something inefficient then lobby THAT level of government to GET RID OF IT.

Give me a Chainsaw Al Dunlap, he used to see where problems were in a company and freely just got rid of those parts to get a leaner, more efficient company in the end. That sort of capitalist I would vote for. Mitt Romney hasn’t governed like that and isn’t running as that sort of man… if his critics were right I WOULD VOTE FOR HIM and he would have free ads to tout his campaign. That these are considered attacks BY the Romney camp tells me much about what his outlook is as a politician. A massive, down-sizing, division removing capitalist it ain’t.

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, conducted a town-hall meeting in Manchester (organized by the University of New Hampshire)

and invited Christie to join in

when they ran into him at an earlier Romney rally. Asked by an audience member why Romney took issue with Huntsman’s job as ambassador to China under Obama, Christie explained that Romney simply meant it would be difficult for Huntsman to campaign effectively against the president having worked for him.

“I think Mitt was pointing out the difficulty of that pivot,” the New Jersey governor said. “I wonder a little bit about Huntsman’s integrity,” he added, figuring that Huntsman knew a cadre of political operatives was plotting a presidential campaign on his behalf while he completed his work under the president. “If I were President Obama, I’d be a little a pissed” about such disloyalty, he said.
(More…)
=========

… I can’t help but think that those kinds of sentiments expressed by the constituency that should have supported her would have done more to discourage a run than anything the media and the DNC threw at her.

Cleombrotus on January 9, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Should? You’re implying there was an obligation to support a politician. What happened to independent thought and free will?